86°Partly Cloudy

Metro Prepares for March for Life Friday

by Prince Of Petworth January 23, 2017 at 3:30 pm 50 Comments

march for life
Photo by PoPville flickr user Juven Jacob


“Metro General Manager Paul J. Wiedefeld today announced enhanced midday rail service on Friday, January 27, to support additional ridership expected for the 2017 March for Life.

During Friday’s midday hours, between the morning and evening rush hours, Metro will run trains about every 8 minutes on each line, resulting in service every 2-4 minutes at stations in the Downtown core. In addition, Wiedefeld announced that Metro will run more 8-car trains (the longest train length possible), all midday track work will be cancelled, and additional staff will be on hand to assist visitors.”

  • Marty

    oh boy, can’t wait for the next round of “My event had more trips/participants than your event.”

    • stacksp

      That and the one-upmanship of the poster displays and signs. Probably more fetus references than I care to see.

      • CapitalDame

        My mind is blown by all of my midwestern relatives talking about vulgar signs at the women’s march then proudly showing photos off their sign (their church is sending a bus to the march for life) which is literally just a blown up photo of a mutated fetus.

  • CapitalDame

    Any word on road closures? Also, why do they always do this on a Friday? Surely there are women who would like to attend with their children and cannot because its a school day…

    • Someone who lives north of the Mall and works south of it

      I was about to ask about road closures too. The only things I can find online are from prior years.

    • Colhi

      They always do it on the actual anniversary of the verdict.

      • CapitalDame

        Thank you @Colhi! I knew I’d get an actual answer from someone!

      • Smilla

        The anniversary was yesterday, Jan. 22. Haha! Women’s March FTW!

      • Grant Circle

        They delay it a week in Inauguration years.

  • I just talked to someone who honestly believes that our tax dollars fund abortions at Planned Parenthood. I know it isn’t true, but would love to skip a long Google to assemble all the facts. Anybody have a suggestion? (Besides PP’s website because she won’t believe that.)

    • textdoc


      • I Dont Get It


        • I Dont Get It

          Alt-right thinks Snopes is funded by George S*ros.

    • 1301

      I mean, the Hyde Amendment?

      • Q

        +1 If someone doesn’t believe the horse’s mouth, there’s no reasoning with them.

    • wdc

      You can probably save yourself the time. There are some people who cannot be convinced. Climate change deniers, anti-vaxxers… you can give them all the data and analysis in the world, and they cling mulishly to their position. Maybe they claim conspiracy, or special interest interference (you know, Big Solar).
      If this person made it through months of “defund PP” news coverage last year and still doesn’t believe, she probably never will.

      • maxwell smart

        They just believe in “alternative-truth”

    • HaileUnlikely

      In full disclosure, I am pro-life. I personally think the movement to defund PP is misguided and I don’t support it, but anyway, I don’t know anybody who cares about the issue who is unaware of the Hyde Amendment (at least the concept even if not necessarily the name) or thinks that tax dollars are *directly* used to fund abortions. I think the essence of the argument, in the form that I have heard it anyway, is that money is fungible, and thus that giving government funding to organizations that perform abortions may as well fund abortions because money is fungible and thus they can use federal funding to cover other expenses and thus shift other money from elsewhere to cover abortions. (Again, I think this is misguided, as if you follow that argument to its logical conclusion, giving somebody a paycheck and insurance contribute to funding abortions because that money is fungible too.) My point here is that even if you think the entire pro-life movement is dumb and backwards (I’m not going to take up that argument on here), most of us aren’t *that* dumb, and the above is a mischaracterization/oversimplification of the argument (at least the version of the argument that I’m familiar with).

      • T

        +1. This is the argument I’m familiar with, too. Another argument against federal funding for PP is PP’s support for particular politicians. I don’t know if that is actually valid (or the extent to which PP supports any politicians), but my very conservative father is pretty amped up about that one.

      • Q

        Thank you. I never understood why they didn’t believe the Hyde Amendment, and that’s an insightful explanation that makes a lot of sense–I really mean it. (Internet first!)

        • textdoc


      • JoDa

        I don’t disagree that *you* think like this. Maybe even other people you know.
        I *KNOW* several pro-lifers who believe that government money is used to *directly* fund abortions. When confronted with the Hyde Amendment, the number one rationalization is that the woman lies about the pregnancy being the result of rape or the doctor lies about it threatening the health of the mother (which, of course, only applies of the woman in question is on Medicaid, but that little detail escapes them, as well…they literally believe that PP can check a box for rape or incest or health of the mother and then pay for the abortion with government money). They have a sister’s cousin’s daughter’s college roommate who’s in perfect health who got a medical exemption and the government paid for her abortion. I’ve also heard that they claim it as a D&C after miscarriage, but it was really abortion of a viable fetus, and the government pays for it. I’ve *also* heard that up to 1M abortions are funded by the government every year through means such as this. Which is especially rich given that’s more than the total number of abortions in the US every year since 1998.
        Bottom line, I know the dumb end of the pro-lifers/conservatives (not necessarily one and the same). I know some intelligent ones, too, but there are absolutely people out there who believe that government funding is used directly for abortions, through direct funding (not through Medicaid), through lies by people who experience great joy from performing abortions, apparently. I wouldn’t be surprised if a doctor here or there looked the other way if a seemingly desperate woman unconvincingly claimed rape to get a Medicaid-funded abortion, but it’s certainly not the primary situation, given how many women I know who had to find the funds for their abortions, often without much in the way of resources to begin with.

      • anon here

        I’d have more sympathy for the pro-life movement in general if there was more support for things that would help avoid abortions–such as education (beyond abstinence) and birth control. There’s a huge potential middle ground that could help reduce abortions, but the most vocal pro-lifers (not saying that’s you) are opposed to so many of the policies that could help reduce abortions that it’s quite nearly impossible to construct any middle ground in which to work together. Not to mention the overlap with the contingency that advocates the reduction of the social supports that would help the babies born to poor women and families in the absence of family planning/abortion services.

        • LittleBluePenguin


        • Crittenden Res

          +1 million. This is exactly how I feel and why I’m pro choice.

        • HaileUnlikely

          I don’t disagree with you. The public faces of lots of movements are ignorant loudmouths that do more harm than good to the movement that they purport to represent. I do not believe the pro-life movement is unique in that regard, but I definitely do not dispute that it is one of them.

      • timmyp

        Haile, though your comment is well thought out and intelligent I really don’t believe that most pro lifers are arguing along the same lines as you. Basically every pro-lifer I’ve met has been so because of religious views. I could actually respect the argument a little more if they argued your point but I don’t see most of them as well versed and studied on the subject.

        Every year at this rally I see hundreds of kids that aren’t even old enough to understand what they are arguing wielding signs they can’t understand. It’s a crazy thing to push children into and from my experience that’s what religions can and will do.

    • bruno

      They may mean DC tax dollars fund abortions in DC?

  • Fungible Math

    Sure, the money doesn’t directly fund abortions (Hyde Amendment), but PP can use federal funds for other services. So while the federal government doesn’t directly fund abortions, it does help keep PP in business. So your friend isn’t exactly wrong.

    • VV

      The “but money is fungible!” argument is pretty ludicrous. By that logic, we should defund the salaries for every single female federal employee of childbearing age just in case they were going to put their paycheck towards an abortion. And the salaries of every fed who shares assets with a woman who could get pregnant. Or knows a woman. Or has ever seen a woman. Just to be 100% sure absolutely none of our taxpayer dollars go to baby-murder, you see.

      • HaileUnlikely

        I agree with you on this point (and actually made the same exact point above!), however, more importantly, I think it is probably more useful to rebut their actual argument (as you have done here!) rather than the caricatured version thereof (i.e., that those stupid backwards pro-lifers aren’t even aware of the Hyde Amendment).

        • VV

          The Hyde Amendment has been a thing since 1976. 41 years. Plenty of time for folks to figure out that their taxpayer dollars are not funding abortion.

          And yet somehow the myth persists – wonder why?

          • HaileUnlikely

            I was with you on your last post, but now I’m confused.

  • Pleasanter

    I would be more sympathetic to the pro-life movement if it was more than simply pro-birth. If they were truly pro-life, they would back comprehensive sex-ed programs that don’t focus on abstinence (let’s be realistic), more government-funded prenatal and neonatal care, paid time off for parents, free daycare, etc. It seems that all they truly care about is harnessing a woman’s body as a vehicle for a fetus. Once the birth happens, it’s sayonara to the mom and baby in terms of support of maternal and child health issues.

    • bruno

      Last year’s march occurred in a blizzard so it’s really been two years.

    • HaileUnlikely

      I think and hope that the “pro-birth” movement is slowly evolving in the general direction that you describe. Exactly what you want? Probably not. But the pro-life movement of 2017 is in my opinion at least somewhat more evolved than the pro-life movement of 1997. See for example Democrats for Life of America.

    • Rasputin

      This is a really tired argument.

      Pro-lifers operate thousands of pregnancy centers that provide cribs, diapers, formula, advise on medical resources, abusive situations etc. It doesn’t stop when the kiddo is born.
      And Trump (!!!) has proposed making childcare tax deductible, which would make things dramatically more affordable. So there.

      • wdc

        Trump has proposed making childcare tax deductible? Seriously? He expects to take credit for something that is ALREADY in place? I’m shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

      • JoDa

        Making childcare tax-deductible only makes childcare “dramatically more affordable” for people who are making enough to pay substantial taxes. Saving 28% of $20,000 in daycare costs is a lot of money. Saving 0% of money you don’t have anyway, so you string together some help from neighbors, friends, and family is still “up a creek without a paddle.”

      • textdoc

        Some “pregnancy centers” may provide baby supplies… but the goal of “pregnancy center” overall s is to get women not to terminate their pregnancies (which many centers are less than transparent about), and to that end, many pregnancy centers provide misleading or just plain wrong medical information.

        • bruno

          What’s wrong with not terminating a pregnancy?

          • LittleBluePenguin

            Nothing – as long as I still have the choice to terminate one I don’t want, you can keep all pregnancies you have and we’ll both be happy.

          • textdoc

            Nothing’s wrong with not terminating a pregnancy.
            What’s wrong is how many “pregnancy centers” provide inaccurate medical information and present themselves as providing “options” to pregnant women when in fact they’re not remotely neutral and are pushing only one “option.”
            Many “pregnancy centers” are also anti-contraception. IMO, the best way to reduce abortions is to provide better sex education and readily available contraception.

        • Choice

          You missed one of the most damning investigative reports. In this case, she was not only shamed for possibly being pregnant, but also for a whole host of other things like number of sexual partners and use of birth control:
          As for me, I’m glad that when I had my medical termination (also known as “chemical termination” or use of the “abortion pill”) in the early 2000’s, the doctors and nurses I interacted with were nothing but supportive (I first went to a PP clinic for a pregnancy test, but that one didn’t provide abortion services, so they referred me to a private doctor). I was even luckier, since chemical abortion was only approved in the US less than a year before I used it. My birth control (multiple forms) failed, I was young, and this was long before the ACA provided any kind of protection. I was on my parents’ insurance, which wouldn’t provide any coverage for pregnancy for dependent children. Had my boyfriend and I not scrounged up the money for a chemical abortion (his parents helped, I didn’t tell my parents because they would have cut off the minimal support they were giving me and we would probably still not be speaking to this day, almost 20 years later, no matter what choice I made), *I* would have been on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars in healthcare bills while I carried the pregnancy to term, birthed it, and gave the child up for adoption. I also would have had to leave college for at least a while to attend to the medical appointments and birth. You can’t get Medicaid while you’re claimed as a dependent by your parents, so I was, really, f-ed in many ways.
          And, as so many women who have received abortion services during their life, I felt and feel nothing but relieved. I have the life I do now because I was able to access abortion services when I needed them. That’s especially true for me, given that I had a medical abortion…in less than 6 weeks, I accessed the services needed. Hate me if you want, but I would be *far* worse off if I carried the pregnancy to term, even if I gave the child up for adoption. You can give people diapers and tell them how to apply for WIC until you’re blue in the face, but that can’t keep me in college or save me from being sued for medical debt.

          • LittleBluePenguin

            Thank you for sharing, I wish I could stand up and applaud you! (well, I could but my co-workers would think it strange if I just started randomly clapping at the computer!) It is that ability to choose that so many people are fighting to keep – If you can/want to keep your pregnancy, then do so, but don’t tell me I have to do the same if I can’t / don’t want to!

          • Choice

            Thanks, Penguin. At that time, the “morning after pill” was prescription-only, and while I have no doubt my PCP would have written me a prescription for it, I was working 3 jobs and would have lost them if I called off on short notice while I drove 3 hours to her office (when I was sick, I gave notice…to pick up and drive after I recovered from the illness…yeah, “you’re fired”). I also have no idea how much Plan B cost without insurance coverage back then, and my parents would probably be notified if I made an emergency appointment with my doctor. We kind of “prayed” after we realized the condom was leaking and I had been sick and taken antibiotics as well as not taken my BC on-schedule recently (I typically took it when I woke at 7 AM, but had been brutally sick for a week recently and sometimes didn’t get up until Noon…thats on top of the “maybe” of antibiotics reducing the pill’s effectiveness). It all added up to “we tried, but…” If the morning-after pill had been OTC at that time, I never would have had an abortion. I am now older, wiser, better informed, and independent, and I still have a current Plan B pack in my home. I should probably go buy several more so that I can hand them out if the clock is *really* rolled back.

      • Anonamom

        I agree that pregnancy centers are a good thing when balanced with access to clinics for those who do not want to keep their pregnancies. However, pregnancy centers are also dependent upon funding. Wanna take bets on the number of programs that Trump cancels because he doesn’t like poor people?
        As far as the childcare tax deductions? Yeah, ok. I already get credit for my childcare. Those big amounts for childcare tend to go away after just a few years. He also wants to get rid of the per-child deduction, so what happens when your kid is in school? No deduction?

  • Cristi

    Who are the guys in long black skirts? They were really rude on the metro today


Subscribe to our mailing list